Lee Bartett, You Almost Answered the Question “What is Language Poetry?”

In my perhaps idiotic attempt to grasp Language Poetry, I stumbled across an article that I (charmingly, foolishly) believed to be the key to my understanding. This delightful article titled “What is ‘Language Poetry’?” by Lee Bartlett tried and failed valiantly and perhaps ironically to explain this mystifying style of poetics. I looked through half a dozen academic articles in my pursuit of clarity, only to find that the vast majority took as much glee in nonsensical writing as the Language poets did. Bartlett was at least readable, and at times coherent, a feat I now recognize as being the greatest and most elusive skill among poetry critics!

Bartlett starts strong, stating that he will “briefly map a few major aspects of the territory describing some of the practical and theoretical questions which seem to occupy most of these writers in their ongoing critique of the “workshop poem”” (742). Sadly, the “workshop poem” is not defined in this article, nor is it mentioned in the assigned readings, nor are there any answers to be wrought or wrung from the internet. As best as I can decipher, a “workshop poem” is something that is formulaic, practical, easy to understand, and commercial to the point of being considered kitschy by the Language Poets. Bartlett explains that the Language Poets, in their derision of consumerism in poetry, sought to be so avant-garde as to be nearly incomprehensible. (Okay, that is what I took away from the article)

But in a semblance of seriousness…Bartlett did pull together quotations from various sources such as this that describes Language poetry as: “a spectrum of writing that places its attention primarily on language and ways of making meaning, that takes for granted neither vocabulary, grammar, process, shape, syntax, program, or subject matter … and to develop more fully the latticework of those involved in aesthetically related activity” (743). And then Bartlett follows the quote with some tangible analysis, stating that “The impulse behind much of this material, it seems to me, is as much a reaction against a prevailing aesthetic, an attempt to provide a critique of the American “workshop poem”” (743). I have to credit Bartlett, I’m following his analysis of Language poetry much better than I am able to follow the discussions of Language poets on their own craft!

While the article as a whole remained fairly legible (again, I must stress how impressive that is), the ending removed at least one layer of unfathomability from the definition of this poetry movement. Bartlett, throughout the article, stresses that this grouping of poets is trying to distance themselves from the political influence language can have in a poem. Now, their idea of avoiding possible political effects is intense to the point of being more akin to Dadaism than poetry at times. The idea was that if the language and words chosen while composing were too singular, to “I” focused and autonomous as illustrated by the poem “Travelling Through the Dark,” the poem would become capitalistic in nature and would also become artificial in a way (743-734). Artificial in the respect that the Language poets did not think the writer should have the audacity to place themselves or their voice at the center of the poem. Instead, it should be less specific in the who, what, and where of the “I” speaking.

Fear not, I am returning to that audacious claim that “workshop poetry” (readable poetry?) is capitalistic. Bartlett explains that a complaint the Language poets had was that poetry was becoming commercialized and valued for its monetary worth rather than its intrinsic virtues (747). Therefore, to compensate, the poets “insist[ed] on a poetry which resists any “normative standardization in the ordering of words in the unit or the sequencing of these units”” (748). As far as I could gather, the Language poets took issue with the fact that the most “successful” poems, the ones that sold the most, came from collections and anthologies compiled by major publishing houses. This of course was because those approachable anthologies catered to the consumerist reader who disliked the impressionistic and abstract quality that can sometimes characterize certain forms of poetry.

Ultimately, I don’t understand Language poetry, but thanks to Bartlett, I don’t understand it less than I did before reading this article. I thoroughly encourage others to give “What is Language Poetry” a read; if you’re lucky maybe you can have a similar reduction in abject confusion! In all seriousness, while I will never enjoy reading Language poems or about the movement, I am glad to have found such a well-written and clear article that I genuinely enjoyed.